HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sequestered Zimmerman tri...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:35 PM

 

Sequestered Zimmerman trial jurors had alone time with family during trial

Source: WFTV

SANFORD, Fla. The six women who acquitted George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's killing were sequestered during the trial, but Channel 9 learned those jurors were allowed hours of time alone with friends and family.

Channel 9's Kathi Belich confirmed the jurors were left unsupervised with guests at times, which WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said is more than enough time for a member to have said something that could have influenced a juror and possibly impacted the verdict.

The Seminole County Sheriff's Office said Judge Debra Nelson allowed jurors generally no more than two hours of alone time with visitors once a week.

Nelson didn't decide until three days into the trial to sequester the jury after potential jurors voiced concerns about their privacy and safety.

Channel 9 obtained the agreement the judge had all of the jurors' visitors sign in which they agreed "the case or anything even remotely related to the case must not be talked about."

Sheaffer said allowing sequestered jurors to have unsupervised visits invites criticism and questions over the integrity of the verdict.

"It only takes two seconds for an inappropriate comment to be made to a juror by a family member inadvertently or otherwise to possibly affect the verdict, how they look at the case," Sheaffer said.


Read more: http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/zimmerman-trial-jurors-had-alone-time-family-durin/nYwNG/

120 replies, 14523 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sequestered Zimmerman trial jurors had alone time with family during trial (Original post)
frontier00 Jul 2013 OP
JI7 Jul 2013 #1
Laurian Jul 2013 #3
Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #6
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #13
Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #34
premium Jul 2013 #41
Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #46
premium Jul 2013 #49
Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #51
premium Jul 2013 #54
Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #55
premium Jul 2013 #57
Kennah Jul 2013 #75
russspeakeasy Jul 2013 #73
Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #117
hrmjustin Jul 2013 #2
VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #4
JI7 Jul 2013 #5
99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #7
heaven05 Jul 2013 #70
nenagh Jul 2013 #112
JimDandy Jul 2013 #8
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #19
JimDandy Jul 2013 #27
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #28
heaven05 Jul 2013 #74
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #78
frylock Jul 2013 #9
VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #10
madaboutharry Jul 2013 #12
JimDandy Jul 2013 #25
JimDandy Jul 2013 #16
alsame Jul 2013 #36
heaven05 Jul 2013 #76
montanacowboy Jul 2013 #11
24601 Jul 2013 #23
alsame Jul 2013 #37
DinahMoeHum Jul 2013 #14
freshwest Jul 2013 #20
hack89 Jul 2013 #29
heaven05 Jul 2013 #80
premium Jul 2013 #33
freshwest Jul 2013 #69
heaven05 Jul 2013 #77
skeewee08 Jul 2013 #15
Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #17
enough Jul 2013 #18
AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #21
mzmolly Jul 2013 #22
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #44
mzmolly Jul 2013 #64
Spazito Jul 2013 #24
hack89 Jul 2013 #26
Spazito Jul 2013 #31
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #38
Spazito Jul 2013 #43
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #47
Spazito Jul 2013 #48
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #50
Spazito Jul 2013 #58
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #61
Spazito Jul 2013 #63
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #66
Spazito Jul 2013 #72
heaven05 Jul 2013 #81
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #84
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I
heaven05 Jul 2013 #88
cstanleytech Jul 2013 #90
JI7 Jul 2013 #35
Spazito Jul 2013 #39
Zoeisright Jul 2013 #30
Seeking Serenity Jul 2013 #32
No Vested Interest Jul 2013 #40
warrior1 Jul 2013 #42
madrchsod Jul 2013 #45
Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #53
premium Jul 2013 #56
Seeking Serenity Jul 2013 #59
premium Jul 2013 #60
russspeakeasy Jul 2013 #79
heaven05 Jul 2013 #83
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #89
heaven05 Jul 2013 #92
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #95
heaven05 Jul 2013 #97
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #99
heaven05 Jul 2013 #100
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #101
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I
heaven05 Jul 2013 #103
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #105
heaven05 Jul 2013 #106
premium Jul 2013 #104
premium Jul 2013 #91
heaven05 Jul 2013 #94
premium Jul 2013 #98
heaven05 Jul 2013 #102
premium Jul 2013 #107
COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #85
heaven05 Jul 2013 #96
premium Jul 2013 #108
Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #52
Myrina Jul 2013 #62
Aldo Leopold Jul 2013 #65
heaven05 Jul 2013 #67
UtahLib Jul 2013 #68
Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #71
tularetom Jul 2013 #82
COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #86
tularetom Jul 2013 #87
madokie Jul 2013 #93
premium Jul 2013 #109
madokie Jul 2013 #110
premium Jul 2013 #111
madokie Jul 2013 #113
99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #114
premium Jul 2013 #115
99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #116
premium Jul 2013 #118
99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #119
premium Jul 2013 #120

Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:36 PM

1. b37, the husband, and the book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:39 PM

3. Bingo! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:42 PM

6. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:52 PM

13. ^^ THIS ^^

And his "opinion" being shared with what is apparently a woman without the requisite critical thinking skills capable of tying her own shoes without assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:37 PM

34. Nailed it!!

There is no doubt now that this trial was poisoned a long time ago.
I think the verdict and the whole case can be thrown out now due to jury tampering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:46 PM

41. No, it can't,

 

for an appellate court to overturn a not guilty verdict, it would have to be proven that either the defendant or his lawyers were directly involved in corrupting the jury process, where's the proof of this?
There is absolutely no proof of any jury tampering by the defense, the verdict will not be overturned.

And there's no proof of jury tampering at all, just supposition here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:54 PM

46. Sure it can.

One of John Gotti's early trials and "not guilty" verdicts were thrown out due to jury tampering.

You'll just have to wait for the system to catch up to the news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:02 PM

49. Link?

 

I've searched all over the internet and I can't find anything about a Gotti not guilty verdict overturned, I found a guilty verdict overturned.
If he had a not guilty verdict overturned, it was because he or his lawyers were directly involved in jury misconduct.

That is the only way a not guilty verdict can me set aside, is if the defense is directly involved in the corruption of the jury.

You may not like it, but it's fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:06 PM

51. Gotti is dead, dude.

So is Trayvon Martin.

You may not like it, but it's a fact!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:10 PM

54. IOW, you can't provide the link that

 

Gotti had a not guilty verdict set aside, right?

Here's a link to what constitutes Double Jeopardy.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Double+Jeopardy

You are 100% wrong about the courts setting aside the not guilty verdict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #54)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:16 PM

55. That's not my fault.

I don't manage Google.

Boo-yah!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #55)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:20 PM

57. Weak dude, very weak.

 

You can't provide a link because it didn't happen.

Once again, the only way a not guilty verdict will be set aside and a new trial ordered is if the defendant or his lawyers are involved in the corruption of the judicial system, where's the proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #57)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:27 PM

75. Only example I could find was Harry Aleman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Aleman

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/138/302/473725/

Couldn't find where Supreme Court ruled on this, so I'm presuming they refused to grant cert and allowed the 7th Circuit ruling to stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:21 PM

73. YUP !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 07:08 PM

117. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:37 PM

2. This is probably how that juror got a book deal so fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:39 PM

4. and one of the Defense witness's was allowed to sit in the courtroom with them for the entire

proceeding...

This thing was a Kangaroo Court...Show trial only because they were goaded into holding one....For shame Sanford Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:42 PM

5. what will need to be done is some investigation, probably some film maker/journalist

to really look into it. maybe in some years when some of these people are old and dying they will talk. especially the bs at the police deptarment.

how the whole thing was such an injustice with corrupt racist officials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:43 PM

7. from start to finish

just wow ... well said btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:12 PM

70. obviously

true!!! man what a sham. I called it a sham at the beginning and it's proving to be just that. This is some banana republic bullshit. Defense, prosecution, jury and not the least judge. Wouldn't be surprised to find out that they're all related somehow. Fuck Sanford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:44 AM

112. VanillaRhapsody, I watched most of the trial.. IIRC, re the Defense witness, friend of Zimmerman..

in the Courtroom for part of the trial...

O'Meara explained that when Mrs. Zim was not allowed to stay in the Courtroom during the trial, she asked this friend, a defense witness to stay in Court and keep George company.

The witness was in the Courtroom on all of day one and half of day two..that is on day 2, as they broke for lunch, Don West saw the witness and told him to leave and not come back.

The Judge then reviewed what was presented during those hours..and decided that the damaging testimony started after the lunch when the man was no longer in the Courtroom.

I think the Judge decided to let it go as he had not viewed pertinent testimony, etc,

I was very disappointed..I wanted fireworks and the witness disgraced, just didnt happen.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:44 PM

8. What absolute incompetence

at both the city and county level of government... from the Sanford police, to the county prosecutors, and the judge. Unsupervised visits with sequestered jurors? Just takes my breath away...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:00 PM

19. This is fairly standard

 

For example, here is from the missouri courts website:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/hosted/resourcecenter/TJCB%20Published%20April%208.2011/CH_06_JurySeq_files/CH_06_JurySeq.htm

5. If the trial is going to be over a couple of days, some judges make arrangements for the jurors to have contact with their family in the evening. This will go a long way in keeping the jury's mood positive. This often can be done by arranging for a couple of hours where jurors may visit with their family at the hotel. The deputies should meet with the visitors prior to contact and instruct them they are not to ask the juror about the trial or discuss the case. Some judges provide that the deputies do not have to be present during the visit, but the jurors must always be under the supervision and custody of the deputies. See State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560 (Mo. App. 1991).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:15 PM

27. In a high-profile case such as this

the jurors should have had supervised visits only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:17 PM

28. Well I agree

 

It's just not that out of the ordinary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:26 PM

74. ohhh!

Yeah, the system worked perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:34 PM

78. I didn't say the system worked perfectly. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:44 PM

9. B37>Frank Taaffe>George "Georgie" Zimmerman..

taaffe called it 5-1 for acquittal. that juror knows GZ. fucking bank it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:47 PM

10. and the Cop testified for the Defense not the State....

When does THAT ever happen.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:51 PM

12. There must have been some real bad politics between Serino and the prosecutors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:13 PM

25. I have never before seen such a huckelberry hound

demeanor on a police detective who was testifying on the stand. I sure would like to see videos of him on the stand in other cases. I bet his demeanor would be way more assertive and a whole lot less of a 'bent-to-the-side-bowed-head-under-the-brow-submissive-glances' look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:58 PM

16. When the whole lot of them are incompetent,

morally corrupt, and trying to cover their asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:42 PM

36. The Cops took the defense side because they

had to cover their asses for the way they handled the shooting. No arrest, no securing the crime scene for evidence, no canvassing of potential witness. They believed GZ and let him go. They didn't even bother to try to identify the victim even though his cell phone was there, they sent him to the morgue as a John Doe.

The only way to justify all this was to say they 100% believed Georgie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:31 PM

76. yeah

you know all during the trial these points were brought up, NONE of the Zimpig supporters/apologists would address this John Doe disrespect. Not one called any of the authorities out on this fact. Very telling I'd say. geez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:51 PM

11. Damn straight

didn't Taffee tell this to Fox News? 5-1 to acquit? I lost it when I heard that, and said how the hell did he know that? Now we know. What the hell is the good of sequestration if they get to fraternize with outside influence??

What did the State of Fla pay $33000 for besides pedicures and manicures and dinner out?

Jezus H Christ this gets worse by the day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:06 PM

23. Don't believe that's what the initial vote was. From the CBS news report:

"The woman, known as Juror B37, told CNN's Anderson Cooper that when the jury began deliberations Friday, they took an initial vote. Three jurors -- including B37 -- were in favor of acquittal, two supported manslaughter and one backed second-degree murder.."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57593887/zimmerman-juror-half-of-us-at-first-voted-to-convict/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:44 PM

37. But B37 said at a later point it was 5-1, that's when one

juror who was the holdout threatened to leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:56 PM

14. I smell obstruction of justice/jury tampering/jury misconduct here. . .

. . .that shit should result in a MISTRIAL, even when a verdict has been reached.

The Seminole County sheriff's office has some 'splainin' to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:02 PM

20. It should be a mistrial, but can that overturn the verdict? Double jeopardy, etc.

Some of the instructions have been posted here on DU and there was no way for them to find him guilty of anything.

The judge was very specific, had made up her mind that SYG law had cleared Z not matter what!

See this brief clip with that here:

Thom Hartmann: Media Ignoring a Shocking Fact about Trayvon & Zimmerman


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017132740

So much wrong here, it makes me feel bitter although some may say I don't have a right to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:17 PM

29. There will not be a mistrial

it was not Z's fault. There could be sanctions on the prosecutor and judge but there will not be a second trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:37 PM

80. as

much as I hate too, I have to agree on that point only. Zimpig did no jury tampering. His 'friends' on the jury, behind he bench and out in the field made sure he'd walk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:33 PM

33. The ONLY way an acquittal can be set aside and a new trial ordered

 

is if the defendant is directly involved in the corruption of the trial resulting in a false verdict.
There is absolutely no evidence of Zimmerman or his attorney's being involved in anything like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #33)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:12 PM

69. It's not on this thread, but there is a report that the jury was left alone in the courtroom with a

defense attorney during a break. Not much there, as no one knows what was said or not at that time, true.

It is possible the allegedly untainted ajurors never heard a word about this trial during the intense media coverage on cable or broadcast television, radio or internet for months. But I don't think that was the case, nor did I think that no one in their community talked about it either. That's magic thinking, it's not like these women were totally removed from the world. Nope. Uh-huh.

My main problem is with the Judge; what she did and didn't allow, and those instructions.

She allowed Trayon's social networking history into the trial and his school record and blood analysis; she did not let the prosecution enter Z's long record of arrests and charging sheets, nor his disgusting social network posts that would have gone a long way to prove what the prosecution tried to prove as to intent using Florida law term that guilt required 'a depraved heart.'

If his criminal record, which is quite ugly isn't proof a thug mentality, IDK what is. And we've read that SYG was not going to be in play, just simple self-defense; what I've seen posted shows the judge was very specific that he could not be convicted due to that law.

Nowhere is Trayvon given the equal right ot stand his ground with fists, feet or anything else after having been followed, stalked, and stopped from running or going on his way by Zimmerman. Nowhere.

We may not find direct acts of jury corruption, but it is so close with poor sequestration in a case that could have been sent Z to prison for many years could make one think that it was a possibility in such a high-profile case.

And the judge's instructions give no room to convict. A dog could see that. As to the point you bring here, I am very well aware of that aspect of a mistrial. There may be others, such as a corrupted judge, that should come into play.

Whatever is done to Z or them won't bring this young man back, who was menaced by a stranger and killed. I think everyone should strip away all identifying factors. The actions were stalking and murder.

I will never accept an arrogant sense of entitlement Z showed by getting out of that car, never find him guilty of anything less than manslaughter. It would have been a hung jury, no amount of bullying could have taken that fact away from me.

If the judge didn't like my not going along, fine, pull another juror in to give her the verdict she clearly enjoyed getting, as she was all grins and giggles when the verdict came in. Or declare a mistrial because the jury was hung. By someone who didn't buy into the armed privilege routine.

Out of the car - unnecessarily - vigilantism. And Trayvon was not caught in the act of doing anything but going home with a soda and bag of Skittles for his younger brother at his home. The only way that is a crime is if walking while black is still a crime in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:33 PM

77. they

won't 'splain', long as they can get way with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:57 PM

15. WOW!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:59 PM

17. This was a classic sham trial.

Boycott Sanford Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:59 PM

18. Does this include the two women whose husbands are lawyers,

lawyers in the same town where the defense attorney is the head of the local chapter of the ABA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:05 PM

21. Wouldn't it be nice to see everyone that put on this charade

 

indicted and loaded into a paddy wagon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:06 PM

22. And only one crack at

Zimmerman in spite if it all. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:50 PM

44. At the state level yes but that doesnt apply to any federal charges

if or course the feds can find evidence that he violated a federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:46 PM

64. True.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:07 PM

24. Geez!

Allowing two hours of UNSUPERVISED time with family AND friends is not sequestration. It certainly explains the rapid access to the high ranking producer of a morning show, the securing of a book deal by juror B37 and her attorney husband.

I am not beginning to give credence to the loudmouth blowhard, Taaffe, who said he had an inside source who told him it was 5 - 1 for not guilty hours before the verdict came down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:14 PM

26. What are the actual rules governing sequestration?

there is a post in this thread that shows at least one state allows short visits like this. Is it really not allowed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:23 PM

31. Visits aren't the issue, unsupervised is...

at least that is my issue.

Edited to add:

"All television, internet use, reading materials, mail, and phone calls were screened, monitored and logged by deputies to ensure jurors were not exposed to any trial information, or content related to the criminal justice system," the sheriff's office said. "Jurors were permitted to receive their cellphones once per day to check voice mails and make telephone calls in the presence of a deputy."

The monitored their cellphone voice mail, their phone calls but left them totally unsupervised during family AND friend visits.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-sanford-jury-seminole-county/2530283/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #31)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:45 PM

38. Oops, you missed a spot there.

"Anyone visiting members of the jury were asked to sign an agreement indicating they would not discuss the case with the jury member."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:48 PM

43. Signing something is not the same as being supervised...

not in any way shape or form which is why I didn't include it in my excerpt but did include the link to the full article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:54 PM

47. Except that part you left out is a key component Spazito.

Now is there any proof that agreement was violated by any member of the jury then of course both parties should be held accountable but until such evidence appears all this is idle speculation fueled by anger that the jury didnt return a guilty verdict.

Oh and yes for the record I think the jury made the wrong call on the verdict but thats just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #47)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:58 PM

48. If that is the case then why not simply ask the jurors to sign an agreement as to their phone calls,

voice mail as well. Surely if the family and friends are to be trusted by signing something the jury should be yet that did not happen, they were screened, monitored and logged on everything EXCEPT the visits. They just logged the visits, nothing else.

Edited to correct e-mail to voice mail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #48)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:05 PM

50. Because there isnt any way to get the people that called their phones to

agree before leaving a message that they wouldnt leave one mentioning the case where as if say its a spouse wanting to visit them to say have sex for example they can get the spouse to sign the agreement not to discuss the case beforehand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:21 PM

58. The jurors had anonimity, only family and, it seems, friends knew who they were...

so who else would know to call that juror to leave a voice mail about the case? That would be the same family and friends not trusted to leave an unmonitored voice mail but trusted to have a face to face visit without monitoring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #58)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:29 PM

61. Actually if a reporter wanted to they could have found out there names which is

part of the reason for the sequester to prevent a reporter from doing that and trying to contact them thus tainting the jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:41 PM

63. You do see my point though, I hope, at the contradictory aspect to this...

and the greater likelihood of a 'breach' with the visits not being monitored. I would contend the 'tainting' of the jury could more easily happen in a face to face unsupervised visit than a supervised one. They covered all the bases except for a very key one, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 10:54 PM

66. Oh I see your point I just dont agree that allowing them some private time was a breach.

They arent prisoners after all and they still have their rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:18 PM

72. It wasn't a legal breach, I have to assume the Judge authorized the unsupervised...

visits. It does, however, make the likelihood of a breach greater. I am in total agreement the jurors are not prisoners but their rights are severely limited while serving in order to protect the sanctity of the process. Sequestration/no sequestration is equally problematic, imo.

With no sequestration, there is a complete reliance on the honor of the jurors they will not talk about the case, search the internet, etc, as was the case in the Jodie Arias trial, another high profile case. I think there is a greater chance of a breach and trust is the dominant factor without sequestration.

Sequestration, which does make trying to protect the sanctity of the process easier, puts the jurors under added duress because they are away from their families and their rights severely restricted. The concern I have with sequestration is that the jury, once in deliberations will have the added pressure to come to a verdict more quickly in order to get their lives back.

I think I have come to believe no sequestration is a better way to go.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #47)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:43 PM

81. Is

there any proof it wasn't? So quick to come to the defense of a sham trial....geez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #81)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:05 AM

84. Is

there any proof it was? So quick to come and attack because you didnt get the verdict you wanted...geez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #84)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:35 AM

88. I

did not get the verdict that was right. You zimpig supporters, you got what you wanted, so catch a cab.....geez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #88)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:47 AM

90. Actually if you had bothered to research it (since its clear you didnt) I have stated

that the jury made the wrong verdict imo and that they should have convicted him in multiple posts on this forum.
But the difference between us is I refuse to blind myself because while I disagree with the verdict I also understand why they made the verdict that they did and whining about it wont change the verdict.
The best most of us who want justice done here (and not revenge) is that somehow the feds are able to bring him to justice since the state failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:40 PM

35. also CNN was VERY Pro Zimmerman and it was CNN where she got the interview

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:45 PM

39. Yes, I found them to be VERY pro-zimmerman for sure...

and the juror seemed confident she would not be asked any hard-ball questions and she was right. I am torn, though, regarding the Anderson Cooper interview because it did show her racial bias, her and her husband's greed and brought out that the jury, according to her anyway, couldn't understand the manslaughter jury instructions so decided to simply vote no guilty. I am glad we learned what we did through that interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:20 PM

30. What the FUCK?

My god Florida is corrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:28 PM

32. Oh, yeah, because when we want to encourage more people to

serve on juries, the best way to do that is to make sure they're virtually imprisoned during such service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:46 PM

40. "Unsupervised visits"?

Were these something like conjugal visits as some states allow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:48 PM

42. Trayvon's Family didn't stand a chance

From the moment he stepped out of his father's door.

Justice for Trayvon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:52 PM

45. maybe the feds will now have the ability investigate this trial.

seems no one gave a shit about conducting a real trial because they knew what the outcome would be .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #45)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:09 PM

53. The feds will definitely be looking into this case now.

You can count on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #45)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:16 PM

56. Investigate for what exactly?

 

And please don't think that this would result in an overturning of a not guilty verdict like a couple of people here seem to think it will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #56)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:23 PM

59. No no no!!

DU demands a do-over! And again and again, if necessary, until we get the right verdict!

We must be appeased!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeking Serenity (Reply #59)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:27 PM

60. LOL.

 

Hilarious, ain't it. I was a FLEO for over 30 years and I've got people telling me that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #60)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:35 PM

79. How many people ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #60)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:50 PM

83. you

don't think there is malfeasance and or corruption here? Did Trayvon get a fair hearing on his grievances? Just questions FLEO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #83)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:41 AM

89. There is ZERO evidence of corruption

 

Except for people wanting to come up with a reason for why the verdict didn't go their way.

Did Trayvon get a fair hearing on his grievances? I don't know what that means. That is not what a criminal trial is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #89)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:00 AM

92. disingenuous

otherwise known as obfuscating bullshit. Catch a cab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #92)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:04 AM

95. in other words, you can't debate what I wrote. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #95)


Response to heaven05 (Reply #97)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:10 AM

99. What's a Fleo?

 

What is the use of posting at all if one doesn't even address the issues at hand? Is there any value to anyone of any of your posts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #99)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:14 AM

100. Hey

there is no issue. Trayvon was murdered by this POS zimpig, you like the smell of this POS, so keep sniffing. That's it. Out and out murder was committed by this POS and he got off. What's the big deal. Judge, jury and executioner must be happy with themselves as must zimpg supporters be. No issue, just murder no matter what you might believe. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #100)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:15 AM

101. You are pretty witty

 

Where did you learn to insult like that? It's very mature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #101)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:18 AM

103. I

learned it by dealing with people like you for a long time. Sniff on, may karma catch up with your hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #103)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:19 AM

105. People like what?

 

People who believe Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter, but now live in the world of reality and realize that the case is over and there is no use in grasping at straws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #105)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:21 AM

106. yep

you're right. Keep sniffing. Should make a person like you be in nirvana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #99)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:19 AM

104. He was refering to me,

 

a FLEO is a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, which I was for over 30 years, and he got it wrong, again, I'm not an ex-FLEO, I'm a retired FLEO, there is a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #83)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:54 AM

91. No,

 

there was no malfeasance and or corruption here by the defense, no evidence whatsoever, if you think there was, provide the proof.
Trayvon Martin wasn't the defendant here, George Zimmerman was.
There will be no overturning of the not guilty verdict, hence, no new trial.
People need to quit grasping at unreachable straws here and except the reality here, distasteful as it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #91)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:03 AM

94. No problem

I never will expect this verdict of not guilty will be overturned by a jury anywhere in that state. Zimpig got away with murder. Fact. The jury of his peers found otherwise? Fine. That boy zimpig is a POS and you like the smell. Have a good one, sniffing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #94)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:09 AM

98. It wouldn't be a jury that overturned a verdict,

 

it would be an appellate court or the FL. Supreme Court.
What's with the insults? Have I resorted to insulting you?
I guess this is the last gasp of someone who can't get their way so has to resort to name calling.
Whatever, you have a great day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #98)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:16 AM

102. Your

support of this murderer is an insult to me. I hope you have one too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #102)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:25 AM

107. Link to one post where I've supported Zimmerman, just one.

 

I've been very consistent on my belief that he was guilty of Manslaughter but because of the ineptness of the prosecution, he was going to be acquitted, and, I was proven correct.
Now, there are people here who are grasping at straws with ridiculous theories that think the verdict is going to be overturned and all I'm doing is using my knowledge of the law to correct the mis-statements and suddenly, you're attacking me and anyone else you don't agree with by calling us zimpig supporters.

Dude, get a grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #60)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:16 AM

85. You're not telling people what they want to hear.

People are grasping at any straw they can imagine (or invent) in order to somehow 'demonstrate' that the trial was flawed according to their expectations. Never mind little issues like Rules of Court, Rules of Evidence - it's obvious that the Judge was in on "it", the Prosecution was in on "it", the Defense was in on it, everyone was in on "it" (whatever the "it" de jour happens to be). Now, there should be a mistrial because the Judge permitted sequestered jurors to have some time with their families. Never mind that this isn't an uncommon practice. Somehow, somewhere there must be some reason to have a do-over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #85)


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #85)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:29 AM

108. Apparently correcting people on what the law actually is

 

isn't very popular and grounds to be labeled as a "zimpig supporter".
I really find it quite pathetic that's all certain posters have.

Doesn't matter, I've got a thick skin, I can take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:09 PM

52. good for them

And if permitted by law I don't see the problem. I am sure there were guidelines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:40 PM

62. Aw fuck this whole thing smells ...

Something's rotten in Sanford ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 09:59 PM

65. Sounds corrupt at worst

Inept at the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:09 PM

67. from

the start when police arrived on scene post shooting to this trial the whole incident has totally disrespected and dismissed Trayvon Martin's worth as a human being. This is an outrage. Tell me those family members didn't discuss relevant things about the trial based on what may have been heard on MSM or discussed in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:09 PM

68. A justice system covered in filth.

Every new revelation just adds to the disgust I have for what they want us to believe was justice in that sham of a trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:16 PM

71. Sanford is filth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:47 PM

82. If it truly was a rigged sham trial, it will come out

Too many people had to be in on it for it to stay hushed up. Eventually one of the conspirators will be down on his luck and need some money and he'll sell his story to some journalist. Initially it will be denied of course but then more snooping will reveal more connections and a full scale investigation will be undertaken. A lot of political careers and reputations will be ruined and criminal charges could possibly be brought.

Zimmerman of course will not be affected since he is protected by double jeopardy, but the judge, cops, prosecutors and jurors may have something to worry about.

It's widespread incompetence at best and willful conspiratorial lawbreaking at worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #82)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:19 AM

86. File under "Wishful thinking". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #86)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:54 AM

87. Maybe you're wishful thinking

but I'm merely speculating.

If there's some sort of conspiracy going on, it will come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:01 AM

93. It appears the prosecutors did not want a win on this one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #93)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:34 AM

109. You could see from the very beginning that their hearts

 

weren't in the it, they prepared their witnesses poorly, they didn't object when they should have, they allowed the defense to introduce evidence that should have never been allowed.
I don't know if it was incompetence or something more sinister.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #109)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:39 AM

110. They were forced to file charges to begin with

methinks that the wheels of justice came off in this case.
The murderers father is a judge with I'm sure some influence, some debts that were called in etc.
This whole thing stinks

They sad part is an innocent 17 year old kids life was cut short and no one is held accountable for it

I'm pissed to say the least

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #110)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:43 AM

111. Just one small correction here,

 

his father was never a judge, he was a Magistrate in VA, which is a low level court officer in VA., other than that, I agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #111)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:45 AM

113. My bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 06:35 PM

114. First the Shopping Spree at Mall, and Now This???

at least the Mall thing was "supervised", whereas THIS is NOT;
so why is this not grounds for annulment of the Jury's decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #114)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 06:39 PM

115. Because the defense had nothing to do with it.

 

For a not guilty verdict to be overturned, the state would have to prove that the corruption was the result of the defendant or any of it's agents were directly responsible, there's zero evidence of this.
It's a very rare occurrence of a not guilty verdict being set aside and a new trial ordered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #115)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 07:05 PM

116. So you think because annulments are "rare" that it shouldn't happen in this case?

This whole stinkin' court, including the judge (and even the Prosecution at times)
seemed to be mysteriously acting as "agents" of Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #116)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 07:09 PM

118. No, the verdict shouldn't be set aside,

 

there's no legal grounds for it, the defense had nothing to do with this, no court in the land would even entertain such a motion and any prosecutor that suggested it would be laughed out of court, and rightly so.

They may have been acting as agents of the defense, (no proof of that) however, they weren't doing so at the behest of the defense.
There isn't going to be any overturning of the verdict, Double Jeopardy attached prohibits it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #118)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 07:17 PM

119. What you say may be true, but that doesn't make it right morally.

This whole trial stinks to high heaven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #119)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 07:20 PM

120. True, morally, it's not right,

 

however, morality doesn't figure into law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread